I'm a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rare earths. An odd thing to be but someone does have to be such and in this flavour of our universe I am. I have written for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Express, Independent, City AM, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer and online for the ASI, IEA, Social Affairs Unit, Spectator, The Guardian, The Register and Techcentralstation. I've also ghosted pieces for several UK politicians in many of the UK papers, including the Daily Sport.

I'll Take Steve Zwick's Bet on Climate Change: With a Condition

Steve Zwick tells us that those of us who disagree with the need for all out action on climate change should be willing to take him up on his suggestion. For, as he says:

If the shirkers and deniers actually believe their propaganda, they’ll go along with this – because they only have to pay if they’re wrong and 98% of all climate scientists are right.

The actual suggestion he makes is slightly hair raising:

We know who the active denialists are – not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.

They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?

But I’m still happy to take the offer with that already mentioned condition. Apologies, but this will take a moment to explain.

As it happens I don’t “deny” climate change. Nor do I even deny that it’s us human beings causing it. I have my concerns about the accuracy of some of the science, this is true. Specifically, I’m deeply unconvinced that anyone at all really knows what is the summation of all feedbacks.

But I still deny that we need to do very much about it all. So in that sense we can indeed call me a denier. Specifically, I most certainly deny that most of the things that we are told we must do about climate change are either necessary or desirable.

I’d welcome a carbon tax this is true. It should be set at $80 per tonne CO2-e and other taxes should be reduced to make it revenue neutral. After that I want absolutely nothing at all to be done. No cap and trade systems, no feed in tarrifs for renewables, no pulling back from globalisation, no localisation of production, no plans from politicians, no international meetings of the great and good. Simply, a Pigou Tax on the externality and let the market sort it out.

By the usual sorts of standards this makes me a denier. And the reason I would go this far and absolutely no further is because doing more risks doing more damage than climate change will. Which brings us to the condition I would pace upon the bet.

I’ll give up what I have if I break the climate. But only on the condition that those who break the economy give up what they have if that is what happens.

For when you go through the various proposals of what people suggest we should do in order to beat climate change you come across entire oceans of the most complete frothing nonsense.

As one example that we should roll back globalisation in order to beat it. This when the IPCC’s very own report shows that globalisation is one of the cures for climate change, not one of the causes.

Indeed, much of what we are urged to do about climate change will make people poorer. So, my insistence is that if I am to take the risk of having my assets taken if damage occurs from climate change then I insist that those making people poorer should be the first people to become poor.

If you propose something to beat climate change that makes me, or Steve, or some unnamed African, poorer, then the first thing we’re going to do is come and make you poor.

Should reduce the number of suggestions from Al Gore, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, shouldn’t it?

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I wouldn’t call you a ‘denier’, Tim. Deniers claim that the data is deliberately falsified, that the planet hasn’t warmed since 1998, that it’s all a con so governments can tax us more etc. They ridicule Al Gore because he bought a house near the beach, which proves he doesn’t really believe what he says about sea level rise. Yes, they really do say that. I’ve seen the posts all over the Internet. That’s the level of debate. Frightening, isn’t it?

Fact is, anything we do to try to slow down the rate at which we’re pouring CO2 into the air, will only delay what’s coming. It won’t stop it. Heck, if man disappeared off the face of the planet tomorrow, the world would still go on warming, perhaps by another 2 degrees C or so.

Globally, 1991-2000 was 0.31C waemer than the 1951-80 average. 2001-2010 was 0.55C warmer. Notice something? the planet isn’t warming at a steady pace. It’s accelerating, which is entirely in accordance with theory. I’m inclined to agree with you about the cost of trying to slow it down. I think it’s just window dressing, so that we can say to the future generations who will bear the brunt, “Well, we tried”.

Is that a good enough reason to spend all that money? I really don’t know.

A classic! First what do they mean by Climate Change and, more particularly what do they now think is causing it and to what extent is it changing climate?

I ask the latter 2 questions because a lot has changed since this debate got started and Hansen and Al Gore et al were preaching to the world that the Apocolypse was almost upon us. They said it was due to man-made CO2 emissions and gave us graphs of CO2 versus Average Global Temperatures based on past “records” and forecasted future trends based on computer modelling. The word CAGW was THE buzzword!

Embarrasingly, the temperature records were shown to be inconsistantly measured, measured by different means including very suspect and inaccurate proxies, not measured globally in equal measure, and with measuring devices and locations not always of equal reliability, equal accuracy, and not even in the equally consistant measurement environments necessary for accurately measuring and recording actual comparative and average values over the extended periods being considered. The basic science proposed of CO2/Temperature inter-action in the full scale Earth system was not demonstrated to any degree of accuracy and no causal link was provided; in addition other natural factors and events/phenomena known to affect climate were not accommodated or properly provided for.

In other words the basis of the graphs presented of past and ongoing temperatures and the forecasts of future temperature rises could not be shown to be demonstrated, to any degree, and the accuracy and reliabilty of the whole database was grossly insufficient to demonstrate, let alone substantiate, the accuracy and reliability of the forecast future very minute temperature rises on this graph – even if the science was correct and other natural factors didn’t skew the actual climate changes out of all proportion!

As time went on the principal warmists were horrified to find that their predicted future temperature rises weren’t occuring and increasingly they were faced with the ever increasing problem that the billions of investment being poured out on anti-CAGW measures on their recommendations was increasingly unsupportable! But, hey ho, they didn’t waiver but morphed the debate into one about climate change – any climate change, and somehow tried to “substantiate”, but failed, to substantiate a linkage between CO2 and all these other climate parameters. The debate became more of a religious dispute: one based on beliefs and not supportive facts and evidence – the latter being increasingly short on supply if not even mythological!

But let’s give credit to the zeolots; they then began to turn the debate around, saying the Green Technology such as Wind Turbines was not now to provide reliable and cost effective(cheaper) power as they had previously claimed, but was something that had to be provided anyway to reduce CO2 emissions and that the Gas Turbines reluctantly accepted by them previously as necessary standby’s to cover for no/low wind conditions were in fact the main base load power generation system. But even then they have never explained how they can substantiate the imposition in their name of the massive additional costs of their Wind Turbines and necessary major ancillary works when the costs per tonne of CO2 saved are astronomical and our CO2 savings generated would be a minute fraction of others’ annual uncontrolled CO2 emission increases for at least 10 or so into the future.In other words, UK Wind Turbines were totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions and as such are a complete and massive waste of of very limited financial resources, as well as being totally incapable of briging the UK Energy Gap!.

But the warmists still kept faith. Hansen – in his wisdom, is now “explaining” why global temperature increases have somewhat flatlined over the last 10-15 years, compared to their past projected increases, by saying this has been caused by China’s relatively recent uncontrolled sulphate emissions filtering out solar heating of the Earth. Embarrassingly again, he appears to have shot himself in the foot as these same sulphates existed previously in the atmosphere, provided by the Developed World, but were reduced under the UK Clean Air Acts and similar legislation elsewhere and by the other measures to reduce the problem of acid rain – and all before the claimed increases in China’s sulphate emissions! If China’s increasing sulphate emissions are now “reducing” at least the rate of increase of average global temperatures, then the Developed World’s past reductions in sulphate emissions actually “increased” the rate of average global temperature increases in the prior period. The CO2/Temperature Graph forming the foundation of the CAGW hysteria and massive spend is therefore further discredited – the reported temperature increases in the mid to late 20th Century were not simply due to CO2 increases, as has been and still is claimed by the warmists, but are in fact as significantly due to the reduction in sulphate levels as are China’s current sulphate emissions in reducing global temperatures. Either way the warmists are discredited and their theories are further disproved!

Finally, the CAGW deniers are not Climate Change deniers, and do not have to prove a negative, i.e,. that man-made CO2 causes global temperature increases, let alone climate changes. The onus is on those who have imposed massive costs and penalties on us through their CAGW theories to prove their theories!

Are you aware that global temperature records based on an incredible amount of data, which take previous criticism into account, are publicly available? Have a look at the rather actual data especially the 10 year sliding average at: http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/

A classic! First what do they mean by Climate Change and, more particularly what do they now think is causing it and to what extent is it changing climate?

I ask the latter 2 questions because a lot has changed since this debate got started and Hansen and Al Gore et al were preaching to the world that the Apocolypse was almost upon us. They said it was due to man-made CO2 emissions and gave us graphs of CO2 versus Average Global Temperatures based on past “records” and forecasted future trends based on computer modelling. The word CAGW was THE buzzword!

Embarrasingly, the temperature records were shown to be inconsistantly measured, measured by different means including very suspect and inaccurate proxies, not measured globally in equal measure, and with measuring devices and locations not always of equal reliability, equal accuracy, and not even in the equally consistant measurement environments necessary for accurately measuring and recording actual comparative and average values over the extended periods being considered. The basic science proposed of CO2/Temperature inter-action in the full scale Earth system was not demonstrated to any degree of accuracy and no causal link was provided; in addition other natural factors and events/phenomena known to affect climate were not accommodated or properly provided for.

In other words the basis of the graphs presented of past and ongoing temperatures and the forecasts of future temperature rises could not be shown to be demonstrated, to any degree, and the accuracy and reliabilty of the whole database was grossly insufficient to demonstrate, let alone substantiate, the accuracy and reliability of the forecast future very minute temperature rises on this graph – even if the science was correct and other natural factors didn’t skew the actual climate changes out of all proportion!

As time went on the principal warmists were horrified to find that their predicted future temperature rises weren’t occuring and increasingly they were faced with the ever increasing problem that the billions of investment being poured out on anti-CAGW measures on their recommendations was increasingly unsupportable! But, hey ho, they didn’t waiver but morphed the debate into one about climate change – any climate change, and somehow tried to “substantiate”, but failed, to substantiate a linkage between CO2 and all these other climate parameters. The debate became more of a religious dispute: one based on beliefs and not supportive facts and evidence – the latter being increasingly short on supply if not even mythological!

But let’s give credit to the zeolots; they then began to turn the debate around, saying the Green Technology such as Wind Turbines was not now to provide reliable and cost effective(cheaper) power as they had previously claimed, but was something that had to be provided anyway to reduce CO2 emissions and that the Gas Turbines reluctantly accepted by them previously as necessary standby’s to cover for no/low wind conditions were in fact the main base load power generation system. But even then they have never explained how they can substantiate the imposition in their name of the massive additional costs of their Wind Turbines and necessary major ancillary works when the costs per tonne of CO2 saved are astronomical and our CO2 savings generated would be a minute fraction of others’ annual uncontrolled CO2 emission increases for at least 10 or so into the future.In other words, UK Wind Turbines were totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions and as such are a complete and massive waste of of very limited financial resources, as well as being totally incapable of briging the UK Energy Gap!.

But the warmists still kept faith. Hansen – in his wisdom, is now “explaining” why global temperature increases have somewhat flatlined over the last 10-15 years, compared to their past projected increases, by saying this has been caused by China’s relatively recent uncontrolled sulphate emissions filtering out solar heating of the Earth. Embarrassingly again, he appears to have shot himself in the foot as these same sulphates existed previously in the atmosphere, provided by the Developed World, but were reduced under the UK Clean Air Acts and similar legislation elsewhere and by the other measures to reduce the problem of acid rain – and all before the claimed increases in China’s sulphate emissions! If China’s increasing sulphate emissions are now “reducing” at least the rate of increase of average global temperatures, then the Developed World’s past reductions in sulphate emissions actually “increased” the rate of average global temperature increases in the prior period. The CO2/Temperature Graph forming the foundation of the CAGW hysteria and massive spend is therefore further discredited – the reported temperature increases in the mid to late 20th Century were not simply due to CO2 increases, as has been and still is claimed by the warmists, but are in fact as significantly due to the reduction in sulphate levels as are China’s current sulphate emissions in reducing global temperatures. Either way the warmists are discredited and their theories are further disproved!

Finally, the CAGW deniers are not Climate Change deniers, and do not have to prove a negative, i.e,. that man-made CO2 is not the major cause of global temperature increases, let alone climate changes. The onus is on those who have imposed massive costs and penalties on us through their CAGW theories to prove their theories and why we should tolerate the costs involved!

By USGS, human-related CO2 emissions equate to roughly 11,200 Kilauea-type volcanoes erupting continuously. It would be like Hawaii looked from the air in the movie 2012, planet-wide, if humans were a natural disaster.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

Quote:

“Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.” ————-

We burn ~86M barrels of oil a day + huge trains of coal + vast CNG ships and plants world wide. As the USGS quotes on this same page, human world wide emissions are ~6x larger than your memory recalls….35 Billion Metric Tons per year.

That said, I really love your cut on this. I’m a reasonably hardcore green-type. Your article suggests you are not a denier, but rather you are in exactly the right place. You’ve settled enough of the science in your mind to set forward your views on what we should do about it.

This is where we all need to be now. It’s time to decide how America is going to revolutionize energy, not fight about the need for change. The number of jobs waiting to retool the nation are staggering, if you stop to envision such a project.

Here’s where I diverge from a lot of greens. Cap and Trade is another invention of Goldman Sachs. I don’t want to play with them anymore, and deep down, I don’t think many of us do. We don’t need brokers to hide carbon use and make a game of our future. If we’re going to tax carbon, then we should drive it forward as a use tax, not a trading scheme.

We need about $200B/yr in the USA to fund the infrastructure changes, at the maximum rate we can research and build, without causing another ecological disaster. That kind of investment would also free up energy to restart economic growth, albeit, slower than before (forgive me if I can’t site that…I don’t remember where I learned it…someone did the math. Probably the Post Carbon Institute and the movie Cool It).

As for Steve Zwick’s take, YES, it’s time for criminal action against the creators of climate denial. Many of these men (I can’t think of a female in the mix) have testified before Congress, and they told Congress a fairy tale. Men like “Lord” Chris Monckton, Chris Horner, Mark Moreno, Sen Inholf, and numerous members of the CATO Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and The Heritage Foundation appear to have committed perjury and/or lied to Congress. I won’t even get into the Koch Brothers…. Let’s put them up for trial, imprison the whole lot, seize their criminally-obtained funds and property, and use the proceeds to fund university/public energy research.

….Steve is right. We know exactly who drives Climate Denial. We know exactly WHAT drives Climate Denial. We who know are not amused, and we will push to expose and indite them.

I don’t feel the need to actually destroy their stuff, nor do I feel the need to scratch any portion of their persons, although I get the metaphoric rage Steve is expressing there.

But what if Mr. Worstall has greatly underestimated potential consequences to future generations ? Has he thoroughly checked out the science concerning what the 4C-6C present emission trajectory (IEA) promises or, more probably, not looked past his TV? And what’s important?

Both Zwiek and Worstall pretend that the climate damage is going to happen to them when, with 30-50 year time lags, the true consequences for actions today fall on innocent parties in the future. Isn’t the latest of new denials something like ‘climate change is happening but we can adapt/it might help crops/etc, and we need to use fossil fuels just because poor people need development too gosh darn, and there’s nothing we can do about it anyway ‘. Shouldn’t any reasonable persons response be ‘ we should act with needed precaution given the present science and our culpability in burning fossil fuels’?

Thanks for picking this up, Tim — and for answering my point and not dwelling on the clumsiness of my analogy.

I don’t think anyone would call you a denier — you’re focusing on the part of the debate we should be focusing on — namely, how to deal with this situation in a way that has the lowest impact on individual rights and economic growth. A denier deals with that by denying we have a problem.

My actual focus was much narrower — specifically on the information providers who actively disseminate information that is verifiably false. People who are honestly wrong — meaning they have done their due diligence and still made a mistake — can’t be held to account the way people are who are intentionally wrong are. It’s like libel: you have to be intentionally wrong, and you have to have malicious intent. I delivered a more straightforward treatment here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/04/22/take-two-who-should-pay-for-damage-from-climate-change/

Having said that, you do raise an interesting point. Emission reductions will make some people poorer in the short term, but we have to weigh this against the long-term consequences of doing nothing. Your proposal would also make us a bit poorer — by the amount we spend on the tax.

We’re on the same page in opposing efforts to reduce emissions by throttling growth — I figure that we should just embed the cost of dealing with the emissions in the cost of production, and we incentivize solutions that make it possible for us to grow at a sustainable rate.

I do advocate cap-and-trade, because I don’t see how a government is going to come up with the right amount for a Pigou Tax, and because cap-and-trade provides a direct vehicle for moving the externality into a solution.

“I do advocate cap-and-trade, because I don’t see how a government is going to come up with the right amount for a Pigou Tax,”

That’s what the entire Stern Review is all about. The answer? $80 a tonne. 60 cents federal tax on a gallon of gasoline for example. And reduce income tax by the same amount perhaps. Close to Hansen’s ideas but not at the absurd tax rates he implies.

Gotcha — I see the logic, and also the clear signal that a solid number sends, but it’s still just one study and doesn’t capture as much information as a market could. Lots of very credible people had problems with his discount rate, for example. A market price would shift with new developments, while a tax is static.

Cap-and-trade worked really well on SOx and NOx in California, which delivered deeper reductions than projected and at a fraction of the projected cost, and the newer generation of regional carbon markets are quite fascinating.

Having said that, I have to concede that there is a legitimate debate here, because cap-and-trade has its drawbacks as well, and I haven’t looked at the carbon tax as much as I should have.

Steve and Tim – I want to thank you both for the tone of your conversation, which shows mutual respect and a willingness to consider the other’s ideas and opinions. As Barry Goldwater said, “To disagree, on doesn’t have to be disagreeable”. The levels of belligerence and petulance one normally sees in debates on climate change are one of the things that keep us from making much true progress in solving or in many cases recognizing the issue as real at all. So, thanks.

Here’s what the author left out: SCIENTIFIC FACTS: (A) 500 Gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere yearly from Mother Earth. (B) 470 of the 500 Gigatons of CO2 are released from Mother Nature. (C) 30 of the 500 Gigatons of CO2 derive from all man-made activities on Mother Earth. (D) Of the 30 Gigatons, 6 Gigatons of CO2 are attributed to all activities in the USA. So the entire United States is responsible for 6/500ths of all CO2 released into the atmosphere. Hardly the tipping point in any way one looks at the ‘problem’. It is dishonest to point to man made activities and unclean industry, etc as being any meaningful cause of the CO2 released into the atmosphere, and certainly dishonest as seeing changes in our behavior as any meaningful ‘solution’ to this disproportionately natural scenario (470/500 Gigatons of CO2 derive yearly from Mother Nature)

But conveniently, the author’s every article omits SCIENTIFIC FACTS: (A) 500 Gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere yearly from Mother Earth. (B) 470 of the 500 Gigatons of CO2 are released from Mother Nature. (C) 30 of the 500 Gigatons of CO2 derive from all man-made activities on Mother Earth. (D) Of the 30 Gigatons, 6 Gigatons of CO2 are attributed to all activities in the USA. So the entire United States is responsible for 6/500ths of all CO2 released into the atmosphere. Hardly the tipping point in any way one looks at the ‘problem’. It is dishonest to point to man made activities and unclean industry, etc as being any meaningful cause of the CO2 released into the atmosphere, and certainly dishonest as seeing changes in our behavior as any meaningful ‘solution’ to this disproportionately natural scenario (470/500 Gigatons of CO2 derive yearly from Mother Nature)

“Electriczen’s” arithmetic mistake is pretty obvious. Volcanic CO2 emissions, which the denial campaign wants you to guess is most of that “500GT”, averaged over recent decades come out to less than the emissions from scheduled airline traffic. Almost all of that “500GT” we can lay on Mother Earth is from biological processes such as termites in rainforests. That’s CO2 recently captured by plants, not the ancient carbon that’s causing the current warming. Biological processes are C02 neutral at worst and beneficial at best.

A famous denialist-for-hire from the Hoover Institute used to sign his postings in sci.environment, “Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.” Well, you have to do the arithmetic correctly…

“I have my concerns about the accuracy of some of the science”. So this author is a astrophysicists and has insights that these researchers have worked on for years on the issue, had their work debated and analyzed their findings by other scientists before it can be published. Then he proposes a solution based on nothing but his analysis of costs and timeline needed to reduce the effects of climate change. I presume that he is aware that climate scientists point to global warming as the cause of the past two years of erratic and extreme weather events. Those alone have cost the US over 33 billion dollars and has left FEMA broke and Insurance companies losses so huge they are now lobbying congress to develop a climate change policy. perhaps if Mr. Zwick looses his house to a tornado, flood, or hurricane and finds no insurance to help him out he just might change his mind on a more appropriate response to climate change.

“I have my concerns about the accuracy of some of the science”. So this author is a astrophysicists and has insights that these researchers have worked on for years on the issue, had their work debated and a their findings analyzed by other scientists before it can be published. Then he proposes a solution based on nothing but his analysis of costs and timeline needed to reduce the effects of climate change. I presume that he is aware that climate scientists point to global warming as the cause of the past two years of erratic and extreme weather events. Those alone have cost the US over 33 billion dollars and has left FEMA broke and Insurance companies losses so huge they are now lobbying congress to develop a climate change policy. Perhaps if Mr. Zwick looses his house to a tornado, flood, or hurricane and finds no insurance to help him out he just might change his mind on a more appropriate response to climate change.

Taking up Steve Zwick’s challenge is a sucker bet. And the best thing to do with people who propose sucker bets is to ignore them.

It’s a sucker bet because he is assuming that things like increase in CO2 will cause an increase in global temperature, neglecting a host of other things that can affect global temperature and ignoring that the supposed correlation between CO2 and global temperature is actually the product of a convoluted form of circular reasoning. Even the increase in CO2 being anthropogenic is far from proven. Bottom line, to say that correlation of two data sets proves that one is cause and the other is effect is disingenuous, to say the least, yet that is the “proof” we have been presented with.

Now, ordinary people are moved by coincidence, often forming opinions about causes and effects that are, frankly, totally wrong. But scientists should not do this. Scientists should take the coincidences that they observe as a starting point for study, asking the question, “Why are these data sets correlated?” And they absolutely should not be focusing on other data sets that seem to be similarly correlated. They should be looking for a theory backed up by verifiable repeatable experiments to explain the observed correlation. Great scientific discoveries are made this way and they are not made using the methods of the climate scientists.

The climate scientists do not even begin to have anything that rises to the level of theory. (To be a good theory, it must describe the how and why of a thing, properly taking all possible factors into account and must be supported by repeatable experiments.) All that the climate scientists have is an unverified model for global temperature, that is, frankly, unverifiable because it does not take account of and can never take account of all the possible factors affecting global temperature.

In engineering school, we called what these climate change scientists are doing with their models a “dry lab.” When you do a dry lab, you start with the expected results of the lab experiment and back into the data that fits those results. So, I am just totally offended by the so-called climate change scientists. To me, they are really con artists and charlatans who have “dry labbed” their way into perhaps billions of dollars of “scientific” work that actually can’t end because the conclusion that you would normally look for will always be elusive.

And many politicians have bought into the lie. Maybe they believe the lie. Maybe they don’t. But one thing you know they believe is that climate change is a really great way for them to grab both power and money.

And who pays for and suffers the effects of this chicanery? Look in the mirror.

Back to Steve Zwick’s challenge: I think I’d rather give him a counter challenge: Let him provide, however he can, a true theory (according to the standard described above) for climate change and I’ll shut up and call for others to do so, as well. And that’s not a sucker bet. He really won’t lose much if he fails, plus, if he has any sense at all, he’ll know that he can’t provide it, so he will just ignore me. Well, there is one other possibility: He might just see the error of his ways…..

I’d also like to take Mr. Zwick’s bet on Climate Change. He suggests that we “denialists” should be willing to exchange our safe, inland real estate for at-risk beachfront or island real estate. I’ll make that trade right now, and if Mr. Zwick and like-minded warmists really believe that their beachfront property is going to be submerged in a few years, they ought to jump at the chance to trade out of it.

So how about it, Al Gore? Ready to get out of your soon-to-be-submerged beachfront estate? I’m here and I’m ready to help.

What, no takers? Anyone? Bueller? You mean the threat is all THAT dire after all? Not worrisome enough to interrupt your time at the beach?

If Mr. Zwick really wants to bet, now’s the time to do a deal. Thanks for playing, Mr. Zwick!

Why doesn’t anyone look at the best long-term stategy for reduction of stressors resulting in global warming. With 6 billion on the planet and 9 billion in 50 years or so, does anyone think that the reduction of population, that the stabilization of world population now, that the reduction in the future is not one of the most important variables in the debate?? It’s just that people like so much the act of making new people, that’s this is probably ont going to happen. If reducing this drive is what it’s going to take, as an important step, to reduce the negative impact we all collectively have the planet, then what is needed is a worldwide reduction in testosterone poisoned males.

Actually, I’m a bit surprised that the point of the article is somehow taken as a new perspective, when actually, alternative policies to a carbon tax have been considered “insurance policies” in which society takes action in lieu of the political infeasibility of instituting an effective global carbon tax. In other words, it is more cost-effective to hedge our bets on the effects (negative & positive, certain & uncertain) of climate change by taking these alternative policies (cap and trade, fuel economy measure, energy efficiency, etc.) at the national or state or local level because it is precisely more politically feasible to legislate and execute. The real heart of the issue is whether legislating and implementing these alternatives to a global carbon tax will unduly help or harm the national or state or local people (their relative economic well-being) in consideration of whether these individual actions have an influence or mitigation or adaptation effect as the climate changes. There is a very real risk that there are economic variables outside the control of any policy instrument — even a carbon tax — because we don’t control the market’s response and we don’t know how to realistically forecast that response even. For instance, are we really going to expect compliance with a global carbon tax and how would different countries ensure compliance even if all countries in the world agreed to legislate a carbon tax? In light of those economic uncertainties, alternative policy proponents have advocated the logic of “insuring” that their countries or states or localities are enacting and implementing policies that either increases their economic resiliency or adaptation resiliency as the climate changes. Also, some alternative policies make sense for reasons other than climate change that may not be able to be monetized effectively in a carbon tax: national security for example. Is the climate changing? Yes. Can we get China (or other countries) to enact and implement a carbon tax of an amount that might mitigate climate change or cause the international economic and finance markets to adapt to climate change in the most fair and economically cost-effective manner? Hmmm…

Mr. Worstall thank you for injecting some civility into the conservation. Would you please clarify your definition of climate change. Are you talking about climate change as defined by paleolimatology or anthropogenic climate change? As an afterthought would you agree that labeling climate change skeptics “deniers” is inflammatory or at the very least perjorative.

I have a counter to your counter proposal: drop any and all global carbon taxes, drop the push for global government and on behalf of the “shirkers and deniers” I accept Zwick’s terms. Global warming is a HYPOTHESIS. The Global warming disciples seek to crush all debate and cram taxes down everyone’s throat to destroy what is left of the Western economies.

I am curious Worstall, are you doing a little damage control on behalf of Zwick perchance?

This article is a great shot across the bows of the debate, with a new way of looking at the issue.

Your $80 per tonne CO2-e is about the mark according to a recent academic study, which set it only a little lower, at $70 per tonne CO2-e; see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512000365.

Your idea of adopting a carbon tax is a good one, it is certainly better than a cap-and-trade system, which tends to set a maximum reduction in emissions, as well a maximum in emissions. The flexible price works towards that end.

While a cap-and-trade system is intended to reduce carbon emissions, a significant difficulty arises at the very point a cap-and-trade system begins to result in reduced emissions: namely, the price of the carbon certificates will fall when the intended change begins to be effective. While lag effects will result in emissions continuing to fall for a while, this will be reversed as the lower price for carbon certificates has its own effect. This can be observed with the EU system, where vigorous action has result in carbon emissions being reduced, and the carbon certificates falling price. Since then, the carbon certificates have not really recovered in price, thus reducing the effectiveness of the scheme in comparison to what the designers intended.

A better approach than a simple carbon tax or a cap-and-trade is a scheme where the revenue gained from the carbon tax in the electricity sector is returned to that sector. This is discussed in the above-mentioned article. According to their calculations, a $70 carbon tax, returned to the electricity sector, will only result in a 20% increase in the wholesale price of electricity. I call this system a “fully rebateable carbon levy.”

Looking at this issue from an Australian perspective, I have a lot more to say on http://australiancarbonprice.blogspot.com.au/.

Tim, you certainly should deny “climate change,” at least the way in which the Warmers present it. See the info below. Skorbabe **************************************** New Report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Completely Reverses Itself on Manmade Global Warming

As I have been writing for years, the planet needs more C02 in the atmosphere—not less. C02 is a positive for just about everything on the planet—not a negative. Humans cannot possibly affect the climate of the planet in any more than a minuscule way—about .002%, according to the mathematicians/physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner. This is a monster difference from what the Warmers claim, which is about 20%.

I have also stated that the oceans’ reefs are not dying off, that fish are not dying from Global Warming, that the oceans’ levels are not rising to any significant degree, and that the ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica are not quickly melting away.

Now, the latest report from none other than The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), supports the above comments and that any global warming that might have occurred came about by natural means—not manmade ones.

The report also supports my often and very vilified statements that more C02 in the atmosphere will aid everything from plants, to animals, to humans—not harm them.

Take this statement in the report: “The net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”

The conclusions of the study, as laid out in the 2011 interim report’s executive summary, are the following:

•“We find evidence that the models over-estimate the amount of warming that occurred during the twentieth century and fail to incorporate [the natural] chemical and biological processes that may be as important as the physical processes employed in the models.”

•“More CO2 promotes more plant growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the world’s oceans, and this vast assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect Earth’s climate in several ways, almost all of them tending to counteract the heating effects of CO2’s thermal radiative forcing.”

•“The latest research on paleoclimatology and recent temperatures [finds] new evidence that the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago, when there was about 28 percent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently, was both global and warmer than today’s world.” (As others have noted: C02 levels follow warming—not vice versa. Skorbabe)

•“New research finds less melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and on mountaintops than previously feared, no sign of acceleration of sea-level rise in recent decades, no trend over the past 50 years in changes to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC), and no changes in precipitation patterns or river flows that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels.”

•“Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms benefit from global warming and its myriad ecological effects.”

•“Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, by increasing crop yields, will play a major role in averting hunger and ecological destruction in the future.”

•“The latest research suggests corals and other forms of aquatic life have effective adaptive responses to climate change enabling them to flourish despite or even because of climate change.”

•“Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths.”

•“Even in worst-case scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.”